“Service systems thinking” is proffered as a label for an emerging body of work that: (i) builds on social systems thinking (i.e. socio-psychological, socio-technical and socio-ecological systems perspectives) to advance a transdisciplinary appreciation of service systems science, management, engineering and design; (ii) explores opportunities to enrich Alexanderian patterns and categorized pattern catalogs into a generative pattern language; and (iii) collaborates on new platforms, moving from inductive-consensual wiki pages to a multiple-perspectives (federated) wiki.

Have you ever been asked to fill in a PDF form given not as editable electronically? The frustrated respondent may print out the form, fill in the fields — either by hand, or with a typewriter (!) — and then transmit the result as a fax. A more persistent respondent looks for a free program that enables annotating the form and preserving an end-to-end electronic format.

One way is to “Open and edit PDF files in OpenOffice“. This way invokes the Draw program — not the Writer word processor in OpenOffice (or LibreOffice). The PDF Import extension converts the field labels as well as entry fields. The import tries to match up the field label fonts, but there may be some shifting.

Another way uses Jarnal — the Java Notetaker and PDF Annotator. This feature was demonstrated in a Jarnal demonstration video, some time after the basic pen-based sketching features.

Jarnal is a cross-platform application written in Java, that runs on Linux, Windows and Mac.

While there is technology involved, the challenge is better described as a change in style on collaboration around artifacts. In an interview at Disrupt SF 2013, Tom Preston-Werner, co-founder of Github, said:

It’s looking more about what’s possible in the world of collaboration. It’s more about people’s behaviour. It’s more about what they’re doing.

If people are using e-mail a lot, to share documents back and forth, this is a huge problem. The work that people do needs to be next to the communication they do. This is our vision for the future. And this is why Github puts communication mechanisms, pull requests, like having discussions around work changes, and being able to document them, put them next to the files that people are working on. Most often it’s code, but put those things together.

The challenge, the real competitor is behavioral. It’s the technologies in general that we’re using, and e-mail primarily. It’s getting people away from the mentaliity that everything can be accomplished via e-mail, and that’s the best solution. That is not the best solution, for most problems. It closes things down.

This web video led to presentation of an opportunity, and criticism, by Lauren Orsini. GitHub is focused primarily on software development, although it the technology could be advantageous in broader contexts.

If you’re not a developer and you’ve heard of GitHub at all, you probably only know it as an online space where developers work together on coding projects—one that’s only useful to the geekiest sector of the population.

But GitHub is actually an incredibly useful tool that could be used to organize any group project online. And the day that “regular” people begin adopting it is closer than you think.

On Wednesday, GitHub CEO Tom Preston-Werner said normals are welcome to join the party. “We want to make [non-development] use cases possible,” he said at the TechCrunch Disrupt 2013 conference. “Now, we still optimize GitHub for software developers. This is something that’s very important to us. Software is the future of the world.”

With a lackluster welcome like that, you could be forgiven for not rushing to sign up for an account right this instant. From a technical standpoint, though, GitHub isn’t at all specific to code projects. It’s open to anyone. If only GitHub made more of an effort to make those others feel more welcome.

2. What is the promise of Github, in changing the way workers collaborate?

3. Are there alternative to the Github technology?

While Github is the most advanced way for developers to track changes in code, features of real-time collaboration for non-technical professionals first emerging in Google Wave (now Apache Wave) have shown up in Google Docs and IBM Docs. Read more...(3225 words, 2 images, estimated 12:54 mins reading time)

There’s so much video content available on the web today, with many different styles for sharing. The variety of considerations can lead one person to favour an approach that isn’t quite right for someone else. After months of trial-and-error, I’ve compiled a comparison of web movies hosted on (1) my own domain, (2) Community Video on archive.org, (3) blip.tv, (4) Vimeo, and (5) Youtube. I was motivated to share the experience of the Beat, Breaks & Culture festival at Harbourfront Centre in Toronto on July 11, in which my third son Noah performed in the final battle between Ground Illusionz and The F.A.M.

I’ve summarized my assessments in a table near the bottom of the (long) page. The essential considerations include:

Once the web movie is on the Internet, how easy is embedding into a blog post, and/or creating a web link?

(d) Streaming and downloadable?

Is it possible to both watch the video online in a browser, and download it onto a mobile device for later replay?

(e) Input formats and transcoding?

What video formats are accepted on web sites, and/or is transcoding conversion required before uploading?

(f) Uploading (and transcoding)

Is content uploaded through a browser or fat client, and is online transcoding an option?

(g) Streaming performance?

Since video files are large, how do they look when streamed on the Internet?

(h) Copyright?

Does the web provider have legal constraints or guidance?

(i) Cost

Will an outlay of money be required (or desirable, if effort can be reduced)?

We’re on the edge of a emerging standard that is well described in the Dive into HTML5 online book. We may be approaching an era where we can share movies and not have to worry (too much) about obsolescence. Let’s look at each of the alternatives.

This pseudo-streaming takes advantage of the open source VideoJS script, either on manually-coded HTML5 pages or with WordPress plugin scripts. VideoJS builds on the Video For Everybody code that determines an appropriate video format for the player in the browser. Read more...(3306 words, estimated 13:13 mins reading time)

While some of my activity on the Internet is recreational, I continue to play with web tools to learn about the ever-evolving technology. While the average person has become comfortable with e-mail, web feeds are still pretty much a mystery to many. The RSS and Atom specifications first used by newswires has become the principal form of web syndication for blogs and social media.

I’ve recently rearranged my pattern of web use (again). To encourage readers to think about how they use the Internet, let me pose four questions.

1. Which principles on web content do I have in mind?

2. How do I post content, and flow it?

3. Why have I recently changed my use?

4. What consideration should web users have for their content?

With the way that technology continues to evolve, the specific web applications may change … but the pattern should remain the same.

1. Which principles on web content do I have in mind?

My attitude is reflected in two ideas: (a) open content with attribution, and (b) open platforms with interoperability.

(a) Open content with attribution reflects that I like to share my learning with other people. Posting the content on the Internet improves access and distribution. I understand the workings of copyright — there’s a Creative Commons license on this blog — which means that I retain ownership of my words, on the condition that if someone wants to formally cite the work, he or she should cite me as the source. I’m not an author who makes his living at writing, so simple acknowledgement is normally sufficient.

(b) Open platforms with interoperability means that I don’t want my content inappropriately trapped in places inaccessible to others. I appreciate instances when content should remain private, respecting the needs of others and/or commercial conditions, but secrecy should be the exception rather than the rule. The content should flow freely (i.e. free as in liberty), rather than having to stumble through technological obstacles.

2. How do I post content, and flow it?

With these principles in mind, I’m reforming the way that I interact on the web. Here’s a diagram (linked to another page in an interactive map).

When a group of people come together for sensemaking about a situation, it’s pretty typical for someone to start sketching out boxes and lines to improve the clarity of the ideas. Amongst 2 or 3 people, this might be sketching on a napkin. Convening in an office usually suggests that a flip chart or a whiteboard will be used. These media have the advantage of expressiveness — effectively conveying ideas — with the challenge of replicable precision and subsequent intelligibility to people beyond the original participants. As the average business professional has become more adept with computer-based tools, presentation graphics — often as dreaded Powerpoint slides — are common. Although more advanced drawing tools (e.g. vector graphic editors) and specification languages (e.g. UML and SysML) are easily available, the gulf between “easy-to-use” office productivity tools and “rigourous” modeling tools has yet to be bridged.

This workshop will explore why modeling tools are not used in many situations where they would be helpful and what can be done to make them more suitable.

For example, during the exploratory phases of design, it is more common to use white boards than modeling tools. During the early stages of requirements engineering, it is more common to use office tools. Yet in these examples, as in many other tasks, the advantages of modeling tools would be valuable – providing multiple views for visualization and convenience of manipulation, providing domain-specific assistance (e.g., “content assist”), ensuring consistency, etc. Why, then, are they not used? The many reasons include: learning curve, interaction medium, rigidity and lack of support for informality.

This workshop will bring together tool builders and people who have or might use tools for their software development activities to explore the barriers inherent in current modeling tools and what can be done to remove these barriers. It will also address what key research challenges remain.

Routing back home, Adam and Ayaka hosted us for brunch at a Chinese restaurant nearby. The popular dim sum selections are available from the pushcarts, and we ordered rice noodles from the kitchen. Clientele was predominantly non-Asian, so some entertainment from first-time diners at the next table. I now have a little headache and a slight feeling of depression, so it’s either the warm summer humidity, or the MSG level is higher than back home. (Golden Harvest, Warren, Michigan) 20150802

Overlooking Chicago River:Lunch in River North, hosted by Charlie and Marianne, who bought me into their family when I was a graduate student in 1982. Discussed their children Michael and Cathy, who are now in their 40s, married and with their own children. Ongoing commentary about the water craft passing on the river below: kayaks or power boats? (Chicago Chop House, River North, Chicago, Illinois) 20150801

Closer to home than #ISSS2015 Berlin, Timothy FH Allen and David Ing, ex-presidents, met to exchange ideas. Small sandbox discussion, could have accommodated more guests for the barbeque. Diana enjoyed watching the horses out back. (Oregon, Wisconsin) 20150731